History of the Vietnam war for people with attention deficit disorder

[Sailor Steve]

About that particular battle? Nothing. In fact we won most of the major battles (maybe all).

But the politics? Ho was the bad guy, Diem was the good guy? Weasels in the US government? Our whole purpose for being there was bad from the start. Diem was a slug, and Ky wasn't much better. We supported them for all the wrong reasons, and that article makes it look like we were there for good moral purposes, and only lost because of the evil people back home who undermined our noble operation.

You can't get much more revisionist than that.

[Tchocky]

1975-Until Sun Burns Out Draft dodgers, leftist journalists, peaceniks, academics, fools and charlatans (See 1968-1975 above) begin self-justification of cowardly acts and empirically wrong opinions, with attacks on American Veterans, and the South Vietnamese Government and its army under guise of morality and evil motives of America's involvement in Vietnam.

This isn't History. It's really not.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

About that particular battle? Nothing. In fact we won most of the major battles (maybe all).

But the politics? Ho was the bad guy, Diem was the good guy? Weasels in the US government? Our whole purpose for being there was bad from the start. Diem was a slug, and Ky wasn't much better. We supported them for all the wrong reasons, and that article makes it look like we were there for good moral purposes, and only lost because of the evil people back home who undermined our noble operation.

You can't get much more revisionist than that.

Well you may call it revisionism Steve but there are a whole lot of people who feel that war was indeed lost at home.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

This isn't History. It's really not.

Yet I know for a fact that my father had dog feces thrown at him upon his return from his tour in Vietnam so there was at least one attack on a US Veteran.

[Oberon]

It could certainly express itself in a more neutral fashion. After all, when you read something like:

Until Sun Burns Out Draft dodgers, leftist journalists, peaceniks, academics, fools and charlatans (See 1968-1975 above) begin self-justification of cowardly acts and empirically wrong opinions, with attacks on American Veterans, and the South Vietnamese Government and its army under guise of morality and evil motives of America's involvement in Vietnam.

Then you tend to think that this might, just might, had been written by someone leaning a little to the right...which makes it more of an opinion piece than it does a factual piece. Sure, it's stating the facts, but through its own slant rather than through a neutral fashion. We've had this discussion before though....

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It could certainly express itself in a more neutral fashion. After all, when you read something like:


Then you tend to think that this might, just might, had been written by someone leaning a little to the right...which makes it more of an opinion piece than it does a factual piece. Sure, it's stating the facts, but through its own slant rather than through a neutral fashion. We've had this discussion before though....

Everything always has a slant or bias and I'm certainly not claiming that this one does not. But revisionist? I don't think so.

[CCIP]

Well, where "a lot of people felt..." is concerned - I think that's exactly where it gets revisionist though. Just take a look at the language - "communist-ruled slave state"; " bombs be-Jesus out of Hanoi"; "Discuss their fear and hatred of Nixon"; "suddenly struck by a desire to see Disneyland and depart" - and these are just some of the softer ones.

I know you want to keep it brief and to the point, but there is a LOT of value judgments going on that shouldn't be in any summation of history. Particularly as regards to Vietnam where - and I don't care if the war was won or lost at home - in Vietnam itself the initiating situation was dubious to begin with. The motivations of both sides in the conflict are hardly a matter of communism vs. democracy. There was a lot of pragmatic play and 'our SOB' doctrine going on. The US forces 'bombing the be-Jesus' out of Hanoi were hardly a godsend to the Vietnamese people. There were massive - recorded - human rights violations by the South Vietnamese regime, as well as some by the US forces involved in propping them up.

The war never 'lost' its moral edge at home or abroad - IMO it never had it. It was a cold calculating act of preserving spheres of influence and playing favourites in a messy situation. Before the first shot was fired by any US serviceman, this war was morally unjustified. The blood and sacrifice of those lost in it does nothing to whitewash it.

History isn't about feelings, moralizations or someone's father being thrown dog feces at by a hippie. There are facts, of which you have quite a few, but there are also value judgments. You have to keep those in check when writing history, especially episodes of it that are this controversial, and that's that.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Everything always has a slant or bias and I'm certainly not claiming that this one does not. But revisionist? I don't think so.

It's always hard to say with Vietnam. Some sources claim victory was at hand but let down by the US government and the media. Others claim that victory was never possible. Things are very rarely black and white, if the US had pushed for an all out offensive into the North, what cost would there have been in terms of the economy and manpower? Would it have been more or less than the current strategy in the South? Alternate history fans can debate that one into the small hours, and probably frequently do.
Ultimately though, Vietnam should have been taken as a lesson and it should have been learnt. However I wonder if it was.

[CCIP]

And as far as revisionism goes - it's not always some sort of horror - there can be benefits from re-examining things past. But in that sense, I'm somehow not sure that view is particularly revisionist to begin with - if anything, it's a very reactionary view that harks back to what conservative media of the time of the war might've been promoting.

I'd be curious, for example, to see an American revisionist view of the Soviet war in Afghanistan now that their own experience has resulted in an almost-exact repeat. Which isn't to say that it should be something singing communist praises, but perhaps had REAL lessons been learned from it, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Ultimately though, Vietnam should have been taken as a lesson and it should have been learnt. However I wonder if it was.

We thought so. Desert Storm for example was fought with the lessons of Vietnam very much in everyones mind.

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

And as far as revisionism goes - it's not always some sort of horror - there can be benefits from re-examining things past. But in that sense, I'm somehow not sure that view is particularly revisionist to begin with - if anything, it's a very reactionary view that harks back to what conservative media of the time of the war might've been promoting.

I'd be curious, for example, to see an American revisionist view of the Soviet war in Afghanistan now that their own experience has resulted in an almost-exact repeat. Which isn't to say that it should be something singing communist praises, but perhaps had REAL lessons been learned from it, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today.

I wouldn't compare our experiences in Afghanistan with that of the communists. The motivation for the war was totally different as was the tactics employed. For instance the US has not used poison gas against civilians nor ordered the execution of hostages in retaliation for resistance activity. Apples and oranges.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

We thought so. Desert Storm for example was fought with the lessons of Vietnam very much in everyones mind.

Good point, and I guess some similarities between the two conflicts in terms of strategic events can be made. Certainly the US took absolutely no chances in preparation for Desert Storm, and then when it turned out to be quite the curb stomp it caught everyone by surprise, well in the brass anyway.
However, when it came around to Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom, I wonder if a little of that lesson was lost. Desert Storm stopped on the Iraqi border...well...most of it did, but Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom are perhaps what would have happened if the US had invaded and occupied North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. Militarily they would have won, no questions asked...but there would have been more soldiers killed in the aftermath than during the actual advance and secure.
Conducting a victorious war and successful occupation and rebuilding program (and I know using the term occupation is loaded but I can't quite think of the right term here, so consider it a placeholder) is hard, extremely hard, within the rules of engagement that western society has placed upon itself. We are constantly fighting with one hand behind our back, which is something our enemies never do...I often wonder how the Second World War would have turned out if the Western Allies had fought under the same restrictions we place on ourselves today. Bomber Command would have been grounded for most of the war, that's for certain, even after Coventry had been leveled. Still, I guess that the warm knowledge that we are socially superior makes up for the flag draped coffins...

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by August

I wouldn't compare our experiences in Afghanistan with that of the communists. The motivation for the war was totally different as was the tactics employed. For instance the US has not used poison gas against civilians nor ordered the execution of hostages in retaliation for resistance activity. Apples and oranges.

Then what do you call Agent Orange? Likewise the execution of hostages seems to be as much of a rogue activity as, say, the My Lai massacre.

I'm not arguing that the two are parallels and I'm sorry I've even raised the comparison. I think the view of Afghanistan and the Soviets as some sort of "anti-Vietnam" is really flawed and wrong. However by the same token, pointing a finger and saying that "they did worse things than us!" is no moral justification for anything. Taken in isolation, there are a lot of things that were wrong about US involvement in Vietnam in the first place.

[Subnuts]

"Politically Incorrect" history, "People's" history, "Patriot's" history...

Whatever happened to plain old history? The kind where the author covered all sides without bias and let the reader decide?

Never mind, I'm just a cranky old fart.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

"Politically Incorrect" history, "People's" history, "Patriot's" history...

Whatever happened to plain old history? The kind where the author covered all sides without bias and let the reader decide?

Never mind, I'm just a cranky old fart.

Easy - someone is offended at someone else's politicized version, and feels insecure in the facts' ability to speak for themselves. Introduce a contest of value judgments, with both sides upping the ante. Thanks, partisan politics and ideological divisiveness.

There are of course two sides to blame in any debate, just as in any war. It is fair to say that there's also been a popular smearing and dismissal of Vietnam. However I feel that responding in kind (with some facts thrown in) is totally the wrong solution.